tv Washington This Week CSPAN December 8, 2012 2:00pm-3:35pm EST
this week, the national and capitol christmas trees were lit in washington, d.c. president obama and the first family participated in the 90th annual national christmas tree lighting ceremony. the tradition of the national christmas tree started in 1923 with calvin coolidge. house speaker john boehner joins the lighting of the capitol christmas tree. this year's tree is from the colorado white river national forest. watch both ceremonies tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. >> we have had these explosions of knowledge in medicine, but we have not coordinated care, and all the services that we had end up having so many cracks that the cracks are as harmful as the diseases that we are treating, and you have got to step back and ask, you know, "are we hurting people overall on a global level? what are we doing sometimes?"
now we have these reports saying 30% of everything we do may not be necessary in health care. when we step back, 30% of the medications we prescribe, the tests we order, the procedures -- this is something, i think, which is for the first time really being called out as a problem. >> dysfunction in the u.s. health-care industry. dr. marty makary on what hospitals will not tell you, tonight it 10:00 -- at 10:00. >> the supreme court will look at what happened in 2008, and they will say that this precedent. and indiana had -- >> when we talk about the facts, they decided on the indiana case it was constitutional for them to establish i.d.
states who have subsequently -- >> correct, they talked about indiana -- let me finish because you misrepresented what i said. the supreme court is the law of the land. >> when i hear these accusations that black people -- voter i.d. laws disproportionately affect minorities -- it seems to me somehow we have something missing in our brain. to me, if white americans can go throughto voting all the processes to follow the laws, what are you telling black people? that somehow they are not good enough? that is what bothers me about a lot of the rhetoric coming from democrats and the left, that we always have to make special -- you know, there has to be a specialness when we deal with minorities because they are too feeble mind it. we really need to make concessions for them because
they cannot follow the rules like everybody else. when you treat people like victims, then i do not think they want to aspire. >> more with the editor and publisher of conservativeblackchick.com on c- span's "q&a." >> business, political, and senior military leaders talked about alternative energy production and the country's dependence on oil. speakers included gene sperling, director of the white house international council, and republican senators. hosted by securing america's future energy, this is about an hour-and-a-half. >> good morning, everyone. thank you all for coming. i especially want to thank the members of the energy security leadership council for being with us today. they have been a distinguished group of people working on this issue since 2006. we are nothing without their
credibility as the great ceo's, an entrepreneur, and military leaders of our time. i also want to give a special>> i want to give a special thanks to the staff at securing america's future energy. we stand on the shoulders and the time it takes to get these reports. the policy staff, james, leslie, the staff that puts these together, our political staff and the rest of the team at safe. we're seeing more production than we have ever seen before. the most production in the last couple of decades of year on year growth. oil imports are falling. the demand for oil continues to decline based on fuel economy standards and other reasons.
we still continue to have a problem. the report we are releasing today and the subtitle says it all. harnessing american resources and innovation. how do we leverage this abundance we have in the united states to our maximum benefit? washington is talking about our fiscal crisis. the relationship of our oil needs to this crisis are close. it is unnecessary ingredients. every recession in modern times has been preceded by oil price hike. we can cut all we want and raise revenue, we will never find a way to solve our fiscal troubles.
how do we leverage this great abundance in the united states of for resources and our skills to help the country through these times and put us on a good footing for the next 50 or 100 years. i think this report is the beginning of a process of creating an effective and stable bipartisan consensus on energy policy. everything is about the zero sum game in this town. we see oil security as a unifying vision where people do not have to compromise their core principles. the environmental community can see a reduction in the amount of carbon and an improvement in the environment as well as conservatives can see the idea
of leaving it more resources at home and sending less of our wealth abroad. this is a way of doing something different, which is creating a consensus to get something done in the next congress. we are excited for the next congress and to work with all legislators to implement these recommendations and see them through to their felon. i would like to call fred smith, the chairman and founder of fedex. he really needs no introduction. but the truth is fedex and what it is done in our economy is groundbreaking.
they are the clipper ships of the modern age. what they see in terms of the economic growth of our country, because they touch every industry, as well as providing the transportation to making our economy grow, i think he is well-suited to discuss this issue. i thank him for being the co- chair since 2006 and joining with general kelley and myself to do this. thank you. >> thank you. i became involved in the council out of self-interest. because of the energy intensity of fedex which operates almost 700 airplanes.
i was recruited to this endeavor by air chairman, p.x. kelley, who pointed out to me when i first came aboard this effort that after nuclear proliferation and terrorism, our dependence on imported petroleum was our largest single national security issue. hence but business executives like myself and the ceo of southwest airlines and other companies that use a lot of energy and retired four-star military and naval officers who understand clearly this nexus of economic security and national security.
we have been involved in the middle east in the past quarter-century and three shooting wars and a great tragedy for our country were the young lives lost and the treasury expanded and the foreign relations issued that it has engendered. all roads lead back to this dependence on imported petroleum. in 2005, we were importing about 60% of our daily petroleum needs. we had about 20 million barrels a day usage in this country. today we're down to about 40% in terms of our petroleum usage per day being imported.
we are still spending about $60 billion a month to import that petroleum. this problem has been going on since 1973. every single economic contraction this country has had including the financial meltdown in 2008 was precipitated by run-up in oil prices. the marginal barrel of production is controlled by the opec cartel, meets twice a year to establish quotas in order to keep prices at an acceptable level for the opec exporters. the national oil companies of
opec and other countries around the world hold the vast majority of oil reserves. they produced only about 40% of the world petroleum every day. this's a chart that shows graphically. if there is ever an example of a market that is not free, it is that. nobody acts in that matter in a purely free-market. if opec were doing what it does abroad in this country, it would be a crime and in violation of our antitrust laws. the prescription that the council, but several years ago which was very impact will in the energy security independence act of 2007, was it, was based on our port of
2007, which said that the united states should maximize its oil and gas production, that it should significantly reduce consumption and improve conservation, which led to the direct support for the reinstitution of fuel efficiency standards, which has not been done for 20 years. and to develop to the extent it was liable a biofuel substitute for petroleum. this new report we are releasing today continues these themes with a couple of important caveat. the fantastic revolution that is taking place since our original report and are intermittent reports by the so- called fracking revolution for
oil and gas. the significant improvement in national efficiency that has been brought about by technology and the new fuel efficiency standards that were enacted by the bush administration and were increased by the obama administration. the report is not political in any way shape or form. it endorses things that are supported by the right in some cases and that are supported by people on the left. you cannot just take the parts that you like. you have to take the holistic approach, to maximize u.s. production and to reduce consumption partly by
diversifying our transportation sector away from petroleum. the last thing i will say is that petroleum use in transportation is the pivot point of this entire problem. 70% of our use of petroleum in this country is for transportation. transportation is fueled about 93% of the time by petroleum. if you want to reduce the united states' dependence on imported petroleum and the related geopolitical issues, particularly in an issue when rising demand is creating a potential conflict for these
resources, then you have to recognize transportation has to be diversified away from petroleum or the prices are set on the world market. canada and norway have been net petroleum exporters but they pay the same market price for a gallon of gasoline as we do. so you must diversify and that includes light duty trucks and the adoption of natural gas in its liquified or compressed form for heavy-duty vehicles like refuse trucks. if the recommendations are adopted, the united states has the potential to reduce our dependence on imported petroleum and thereby our national -- reduce our national
security risk to improve our balance of payments and about half remains petroleum. and to increase our gdp by the maximization of these activities in the united states rather than exporting our dollars abroad. thank you very much. think we can sit down now. >> thank you. give us a moment to take care seats. [applause] our panel discussion is about to begin featuring senator lamar alexander and our moderator.
>> can you hear me now? good morning, everyone. i'm in lazy moderator. want to talk about this report, talk about the future of energy in this country and the future of transportation. i want to make sure you know to please jump in. i don't want to ask a question and ask another question. do we all agree? wonderful. let me start with fred. we have heard about this new
found or renewed abundance for energy. i have heard people this week, saudi america. we have all this energy. how do we leverage it and harness it? >> it is important to take the hyperbole of comments like america being the new saudi arabia of energy and put it in perspective. 18.7 burning about billions of liquid fuels today. we produce after an incredible increase of domestic production about 6.5 billion barrels of oil per day. when you take biofuels and the
natural gas liquids, it is about 9 million barrels per day. we are still importing an enormous amount of petroleum. the first thing about our recommendation is to maximize u.s. oil and gas production everywhere, in alaska, offshore, it is coast, west coast, gulf coast, in new york, pennsylvania, in the eagle ford areas. that has enormous implications in terms of gdp growth. because of the enormity of the issue, you have to continue to reduce demand. >> what role should the
government play in the future -- your business is in transportation, too -- we are mired in conversations about the fiscal cliff. we are talking about long-term infrastructure, a long term energy plan. >> this is the perfect opportunity for the government to work together to achieve a common goal. there is plenty of times when our interest might not call last with the interest of either of the parties. this is the opportunity we have never had before. you could have consumer, business, and the government's all working together to take advantage of this huge resource.
for us, it makes so much sense because it makes business sense. we get about $1.65 a quilt when natural gas. from the government point of view, everybody is talking about jobs and the fiscal cliff. everyone talks about taxes and what is going to happen with the fiscal cliff. there has been $1500 gone to increase oil prices. you can get them that tax cut today if you invested in our report. everybody talks about entitlements. high oil prices make the social security trust insolvent five years sooner than they would if
he did not have high oil prices. america needs jobs and growth. following the recommendations in our report will lead to both of those. it would be good for american business. >> i will start with senator alexander. tell me about energy policy and where it fits in with the fiscal cliff. what we will spend money on and how we were tightened our belts. >> the major place it fits is the right policy would create an environment which would
produce a lot more revenue. that would help to reduce the debt. the federal government doesn't spend much money on energy. energy research is about $6 billion a year. i would like to see it doubled. this report is a blueprint for independence and i think it is the right blueprint. we are not in a position to be held hostage by anybody. it also focuses on find more and use less. what we can do in the federal government is i think invest in research and getting a 500-mile battery for electric cars and getting solar energy that is 1 kilowatt installed and finding a way to capture carbon from
coal plants that can be turned into fuel that is commercially sold. we should look at the model of unconventional gas in terms of how our system and federal research and our system of private properties have produced a situation where we have a massive advantage over europe and asia in terms of our natural gas. it creates a better economy and that reduces the debt. >> there is a headline predicting we will be producing more oil than saudi arabia beginning in 2020. this is something almost on imagined 10 years ago. what is the role of the federal
government? >> to do things that encouraged the results. you can solve this fiscal problem if you grow our role to position relative to everybody else's. a big problem is the percentage of government spending is more than its should be related to total gdp. if there is an easier for millet in the history of economics that more american energy equals more american jobs, i don't know what it is. it is all the jobs you have if you of a reliable supply of energy. the front page of the "the wall street journal" indicates a difficulty of connecting this cheap product we have in natural gas.
we thought we would run out natural-gas as a country. connecting this cheap product with a more expensive market and getting it overseas. if we could become energy self- sufficient, that does not mean we would not buy on the world market, but if we could meet our needs in the north american markets, almost all of that money comes back to us. we have no better trading partner than canada. nafta has increased the trading capacity of mexico. it has gone somewhere from the 40% range and a growing and, catching up with canada.
when you buy energy in north america, they give you the money back. that was a lot to solve the problems. if you make your position better as a nation, suddenly, your numbers begin to where they need to be relative to the rest of the economy. >> you said this is one of the most important issues facing america. why do you think it is such an important issue? >> transportation and the availability, the means to get there, what we do with it, it is without a question in my mind, being a marine and an infantry officer, it is the most important problem facing the united states for several reasons. first, i do not believe that the american public truly understands the transportation
problem in the availability of the resources to solve the problem. i think we need an education program by learned scholars, such as those in this audience to help us in getting this word out to america. i think it is essential because it is coming on very fast. there are things that are happening that we take for granted. as an example, we take for granted the fact that we can move thousands and thousands of marines, sailors, soldiers and have the equipment without any burden to carry economy, not true. the truth of the matter is is a tremendous burden to our economy to have a national-security policy that defends the country that we love so much. without having the ability and willingness to get out and give the american public forums such as this in helping giving us
answers to some of the very difficult questions that they ask, i want to take this opportunity to think robby for what he does. i met him some years ago when he found my office in an office building. he came in and we had a chat and i said, my goodness, this fellow knows what he is talking about and he has never disappointed me whatsoever. what we need to do is explain to the american public things such as the fact that you cannot move thousands of troops and their equipment down all the other things that go along with it free of charge. it has a price tag that is quite large, but it is in the best interests of the united states.
to answer your question, i think we need a very cultured energy policy that we, the people in this room like you and me, we can inform the american public that this is a problem and this is a way we propose to fix it. >> thank you. you are passionate about this subject, i can tell. let's talk more about the military. you talk about moving people and machinery. there are some of the other esteemed leaders of america's military here. what about american national interests in other parts of the world? and general conway, how does that change if we have an abundance of energy that we are able to harness in this country? >> it changes it. i would say my sense is that we are on a long drive. as opposed to grasping in the dark as we may have thought of
10 years ago, we are driving into sunlight. as has been pointed out, we still depend on foreign sources for about 40% of our energy requirements. in my mind, that still creates a critical vulnerability, maybe even a central gravity. 2013 will be a very interesting year and it will be a long time before we are totally energy dependent. to your question and, i think we need to be conscious of what decisions we can make as a nation. today, our economy as much more consideration on the part of great military minds than ever before. as we look to give it to the pacific for good and just reasons, we do so with full knowledge that we get our primary raw resource from the middle east, from africa, from the americas, and to a lesser degree, from europe.
we need to be conscious of what the requirement is as we make military decisions. this vulnerability you we will phase, i believe we will for some time. we also have an economic competitor and a partner in china. they have a voracious appetite for natural resources and we're looking at new ways to get these in our own backyard, and maybe i will ask you this question, admiral. how important is the china factor in america energy program's going forward? >> i will talk to doubt, but i would like to mention a few puffs things about this report that may not have come out in your opening remarks. we definitely advocating opening of drilling in the united states where we cannot, but there is a very strong part of this report that says it has to be done safely and we know how to do it safely.
that is one contribution of those of us who have served in the armed forces, we do a lot of dangerous stuff in the armed forces, fuel, nuclear power, explosives. the way we do that safely is a high standards, rigid enforcement, and very professional inspectors to do it. we strongly recommend applying this model to regulatory body so that we can do this safely, so that we can do oil retractions safely. that we can do safely. the general and i live in pennsylvania and we want our water to be drinkable, our streams usable, but we believe firmly that can be done if you enforce these standards. the second thing is that we do advocate a federal role and a
non-pre-market to try to open up possibilities to this country for more different kinds of energy, but we are definitely concentrating on creating the conditions part of this. we are not talking about creating winners and losers in developed industries. we're talking about opening up to alternatives to today's petroleum based internal combustion engines so that we reduce our national security dependence on the oil that is coming from, in many cases, unstable countries and also regimes that do not wish us well, and quite the opposite. china and india are causing the trend that will drive the cost of petroleum up, so no matter what we do, the balance of payments is worse, so from the
economic point of view, it is china's role as they seek to achieve wealth and prosperity, which they want and which we want them to have that causes us to look elsewhere for these alternatives so that we are not hurt by their success but we have alternatives for ourselves. >> can i have you weigh in on the importance for how these new trends in energy production may change where we are acting in what we're doing in the rest of the world? >> there is a lot of talk about if this will change our focus in the middle east, but countries that are self- sufficient still pay the same market price than the world market, so that will not change. i think we will still have an
interest in the middle east and we will still have some emphasis there but it gives us more leverage, better options. it improves our flexibility, of this rebalancing of our national security policies in the pacific, an area where we need to pay closer attention that i hope can be done in a constructive way of as we develop our relationship with china. i think it gives us more flexibility, leverage, options and it hopes with resilience. overall, the foundation of military power, no matter how great and good we are, the bedrock, the thing we build our national security leverage on is a well functioning economy. we need to show the world we can get our economy under control,
reduce the deficit, and begin to show leadership in various areas of new technology that demonstrated here to the rest of the world. kohl will always be there. there's lots of work there. all the sales will help, i think, of leverage our capability and give us more options. >> let me bring you in. 92% of american transportation is run on petroleum. with this new landscape for energy production of, how are we doing on diversifying different kinds of things that are running our transportation? >> so far, it is going slow. something that was deeply focused on was something note senator alexander said earlier.
we need to find more and use less. i think you're asking about the use less part. the extension of the changing fuel efficiency standards was one thing, but we believe fervently in the need to diversify away from using petroleum for transportation and given that it represents 70% of our use of petroleum to begin with. with the change in technology and the access to so much homegrown natural gas, we can use that and we can also use the development of electricity and its usability in automobiles and light trucks. >> what about the role of the government? find more coming years last, and someone has to make sure we are not doing dangerous things, as the admiral pointed out. >> i am a private sector guy,
and i believe in the application of private and free markets for the development of our country, but there are times it is clear when the government has an unfortunate role to play. in fred's introductory comments, the argument was very clear. the market for oil, on which we depend, is not a free market. the only way we can respond to that is an activist approach. that does not mean it has to be very expensive, but we need to develop a coherent policy. the fact that are recommended proposals are supported by people typically on the right side of the dial and others are typically supported by the left should suggest to you that this is not an ideological game. this is about trying to come up with a set of proposals that are good for our country overall. the lack of ideological support
should be viewed as a positive. >> ways to see you. i want to bring in gene sperling who just came in a minute ago. >> thanks. i apologize for the fact that i do not control my life for scheduled to much. >> nothing going on in your world. now that we have brought you from the edge of the fiscal cliff, let's talk about these for a moment. you have seen the headlines that say, saudi america. we have this new found richness, new technologies to find energy. i have seen some estimates up to 3 million new jobs directly related to the energy boom. is it real? how unfortunate of a driver will that be for the economy? when you're sitting down trying to figure out what growth will look like in this country, how
does a factor in? >> in a few ways. number one, if there's one thing i feel more optimistic than i did one decade ago, i had a book out around 2006 and i felt like, when you are out making the case for why there should be more location as opposed to china and india, you felt like you how the wind in your face. you have great meetings but then they pull your side and say, that's a powerful argument, but we're moving this to bangalor next week. there is much more of an economic case for people to be relocating and bring jobs back. some of that is about the way it is structured between us and china and some of it is energy. no doubt the future of natural gas is just making the price calculation more attractive to someone thinking about a new location and, in a planned of being in the united states. energy, the lower cost a
promised natural-gas is a promised economic factor in location decisions making it more competitive. that point was driven less by democrats and republicans and really the consulting community making this case to their clients and that is now getting out. i think that is one thing. secondly, as we have seen, and others would say, we are not dependent on foreign oil as much as the global oil markets. when oil markets are volatile, it brings in volatility to our economy. we felt it both in 2011 and an 2012. buanan prevented, but to have the volatility have such an impact, we were fortunate. we put in a payroll tax cut that would cushion people's
consumer spending a bit, but when you are in a tenuous time, as we has been the, the fact that the volatility can have such an effect on consumer confidence, we all know that americans are over affected by consumer confidence factors. they are bothered by sudden spikes in gasoline prices more than economics tell you that they should be. and, obviously, jobs related to the actual increase in oil and natural gas production and have an industry is based off of alternative fuels, a think that is all very productive. one thing i want to say since we are in this time where no one seems to be getting along is that, one place where i see a real bipartisan agreement, they have an excellent bill on
electric vehicles where they have an idea that maybe you have already talked about, but i believe so much in that type of thing. to be able to show something working somewhere from the first time 60 minutes or cnn and is able to do a story where you show a community where it is easy and the incentives are there two years on alternative vehicle, i know what will happen. every mayor will see that, really the people come and say, why cannot we do this? having this deployment community proposal that senator blogged and alexander have as, i think, the type of thing you have to do to create momentum. you have to show success and usability. you look at that in the 54.5% goal by 2025 in there, and i think that creates real momentum.
all of these things are good for certainty, good for bringing jobs back, and creating economic activity as this becomes the place to not only explore and their research on but the ploy alternative vehicles and alternative vehicle technology. >> i will seize on that with the bipartisanship because we will not smell that in the next three weeks. let's talk about the deployment idea. >> the idea is for the government to help create models to see what works and how it can work. i think he said it very well. you have the story about how this community is responding to this infrastructure that makes it easier to have an electric car or natural gas-powered car and you see what happens. senator brown alexander has been a real leader in this and he even has an electric car.
he is going the distance here, walking the walk. that's the kind of thing government can do. government can do a lot on the regulatory side to slow things down if you forget to have effective cost-benefit analysis, but it can do a lot on the project side to really find something that works and the community becomes the laboratory for change and that others can then model. you do not have to do it everywhere and if you can show in water to a location that there really work. that is the driving force behind the idea of that lamar has been a significant spokesperson for. >> do like that car? >> i do like it. i have driven my leaf. i live in this building in a plug in the wall when i go home at night. that's all i have to do. deployment communities are a good idea.
sometimes the government can have a demonstration project that makes a difference. they did a hydraulic factory and we have had fracking are around forever. three things made a difference in it. one was a huge to demonstrate that you could do it in a big way which was helpful. the second was the laboratory inventing 3d mapping. it was the entrepreneurs and the people who was the land that made the difference. iolite the deployment communities, but i prefer research and development. i take the $14 billion and we would spend on windmills and put it on energy research. that's a mature technology, but if you want to sell a lot of those lef's the key is to get
the cost from $30,000 down to $20,000 and the key would be a 500,000 mile battery. -- 500-mile batter or battery with more density. this little agency in the department of energy has a research project that they are funding which is a double the density of lithium batteries for cars. that's exactly where we ought to go. they would also have a project to turn a microbe into commercial fuel. and that would work, that's the holy grail of energy. it is also working on solar power and $1 per kilowatt installed. that's precisely what we should do and does not cost much in federal money.
we spend $6 billion per year on energy research. we could double that over five years on those kinds of projects and i think you would be the most voluble thing we could do which is perfectly consistent with many of the recommendations in this report. >> we will take some questions from the audience, but i wanted to make sure everyone got a chance to weigh in on what you think the role government should be. companies, governments, and citizens in trying to figure out a national problem. >> hello, thank you. the government needs to recognize that for us to be economically competitive, we need a reliable and economic source of energy. the four alternatives are available, which are economic and reliable, we have to make sure the resources are economical.
yes, we can increase the oil production and, but if we maintain a free market, the prices will depend on global pricing. one more point i would like to make regarding conventional energy, the history of the internal combustion engine, we are spending a 15% less and there is a huge amount of improvement that is possible. of that improvement happens, which i'm confident that it will, it will attack the problem at the root, where we're using a lot less oil and creating less carbon dioxide. the federal government recognizes that the internal combustion engine is going to
power in the near future or the medium future, the alternatives will be ready for prime time and that would be helpful economically house well. >> whenever time of transition we make in how we power the country or powered transportation, it's going to take a long time. there's no reason for that to be painful if we can bridge that -- but how long it will take people to replace the vehicles they have now, whether new camry for that replacement or not and what you can do, but just realistic understanding that if we knew what was going replace the internal combustion engine for transportation and, it will be decades before every family in america got there and that is probably the right way to do it. understanding that and reliable, dependable -- something you know will be
there, it allows your economy to grow in unbelievable ways. we have a potential here to really launch our economy in a way that not only helps us but helps the whole world who will anchor around a strong and growing u.s. economy and they all know it. there is no country in the world for the people in charge do not understand that they benefit from a strong, dependable, secure u.s. economy and energy is the key, i think. >> christine, can i just say something here? i think one program we have done in securing american pricing energy and is something of note that many of us have seen. i think it speaks to several key messages. just as we did in 2005, they're
just as relevant today when we were importing 60% vs. 40% and continuing to go down. they also fall along what senator blunt said house well. but you see from when we have the oil crisis, there is no such thing as energy independence. some fear we define the problem as energy independence and it is all about imported oil. but then we solve a problem. we have been saying we needed to end our dependence on foreign oil, but the truth is we have a dependence on oil and any thing that happens anywhere in the world affects us here. if we miss diagnose the problem, we come up with the wrong solution. at the time, in a lot of sense. it's catchy. the public understands, but i think we need educating continue talking about this with the american public. if you missed diagnosed the problem, you have the wrong
solution. the problem is one of energy security and resiliency. the second thing you learn in that simulation every time the cabinet runs through it is it never fails, they always turn around to me on the panel proper words and they say, i wish the hon done this 10 years ago. that is what senator blunt was saying. there are no good short-term solutions but there are really go long-term solutions but you have have the policy in place in order to have them matter. that is why when we put together the strategy, we continue to talk about producing more coming using it more efficiently so our economy is more insulated from the shock as well as finding alternatives so that we are not completely hostage to this global market and that cartel. the unique the policies in place today in order to have that in time, is this a bipartisan
consensus to have policies implemented today so that over the next five, 10, 15, 20 years we continue to use this abundance of energy and thus less of the time we have been given to put us in the right position and. >> i do not know who wants to field this, but in this white paper, you cite that hydraulic fracking 5 should be regulated at the state level. can we talk about this? environmentalists and consumer groups talk about the growth of fracking. are the state able to do this? should they do this? >> i think the answer is absolutely, yes. there are some states that have really good and tight regulations. the most important thing we have to make sure that the american public continues to
support the idea because we need this energy out of the ground. if there is a problem more some accidents and the country turns to side against it, that would be the worst outcome. we need to make sure there is a smart regulatory approach that does not withhold. we should be producing as much as we can when we can, but the roles of the road should be set. there are states that have very smart regulatory approaches and there are some just getting into this business and are starting to think through these questions. we are advocating that states understand the resources better and they have the right agencies to do this. but just make sure that the best practices are shared with others and implemented. >> as a former governor, i always bristled a bit at the suggestion that somehow i was smarter today when i got up and flew up here just because i am
in washington, d.c. i don't believe that. of course states can and should do it because some states may have a different attitude towards this in pennsylvania than texas. so you want to take into account many of these issues that are environmental issues and reassuring people locally about whether the procedures being used are safe and reliable. often local people can do a better job of explaining that or they may not want as much of it. they may want less. i thinks states have a right to be wrong in terms of competence. i just went through a hearing the other day on this meningitis outbreak that we had where people were taking these bad injections with unsterile stuff produced by a massachusetts compound and factory and it was the tennessee department of
health that found out and they saved lives. the fda was not looking too good. but yes is the answer to the question. the epa and the federal government have delegated a lot of the responsibilities for clean air and water to the states. they can have an overview for that, but i like the idea of states doing it. >> get ready for some questions. >> get ready for some questions. i'm going to put you on the spot, just among friends here. are we going to go over the fiscal cliff? [laughter] >> this is off the record? >> just us. >> there is no reason the country should not be able to come together and overcome the dysfunction to have a broad,
fair agreement revenues from those who can afford it most and the type of entitlement reform that we need to gather to be part of a balanced deficit reduction package. everyone has to realize compromise is not a dirty word. there's just no reason. they're the reason it should come to that. i will connect a slightly to our discussion here in two points. one reason you want to have an agreement that does include the type of significant revenues and mandatory savings is that because we cannot come to an agreement on that, we continue
to cut too deeply into some of the domestic discretionary where a lot of our investment in the future comes from. i agree completely with what senator alexander said about the and portents -- about the importance of our andy in breakthrough technologies -- of research and development that would not get funded simply because no individual actor can capture the benefits of the research enough to justify meaning that we, as a country, are under investing and that is really important in our country. because we cannot come up with a big agreement and we keep cutting deeper and deeper into domestic discretionary spending, it just means not only
in this area, and i age from other areas, but our ability to invest in research and the future is lessened and we are all poorer for it. >> i will make dinner reservations for new year's eve. you're telling me i will not be working. there is a hope we're going to avert this thing? where are the microphones? there's one right over there. >> i'm wondering the phrase "smart grid" does not appear in the report today. how does this fit into the council's thinking? >> safe and the energy security leadership council has a long history of many policies. just because we do not mention it in this policy does not mean
we have not said it before and that we continue to support it. what i say about these margaret, and i will tie this to the electric vehicle, for a long time, we believe the electrification of transportation is probably the best way to drive the smart grid. politically because it deals with the question of oil so acutely. republicans and democrats can get together. when people put an electric car in their rush hours. suddenly their relationship to electricity prices means so much to them. during your dishes at 7:00 at night vs 10:30 at night and saving a few pennies will probably know not drive the american consumer to embrace and understand electricity in ways that have never done before, but putting a car in their garage, the idea is to spend a little bit capital upfront but you have a lower operating costs because electricity is so cheap.
you put these in these deployments communities, and we believe that would be research and development, the petrie dishes of learning about consumers. as you put them in those garages, those are the communities that will be the fastest to upgrade the grids and make sure these margaret is a robust capability in their community. >> over your arm the left. >> i want to congratulate you all. i am with the naval postgraduate school, but i ended up creating something we call the energy consensus for one- year to ask people to talk about energy when it was a forbidden topic inhe defense department. this was through 2004. i got funding from the department of defense and it
created the energy conversation. i want to get to a point tha was brought up inumb of times, having the american public understand this unbelievably complex story. i remmend you all watch alan alda's vido, "the flame." he asked what it was money was small and could not get an answer. he went up was don every university andy put on a worldwide contest to explain what a flame is to 11 ar-old. they h 600 submissns and 6011 year old evaluated this. keep in mind how complex that is. i bought a book two weeks ago called "black gold" r my granddaughter by albert marin. i recommend ofhe academics in
this room or anywher not many people are going to read or understand your report. a lot of what needs doing telling this story as that it has to be visual because it is so unbelievably complicated, interdependence, integrated, and for most of us, ijust looks like chaos. i'm going to sgest that you do things like kids were stying english working with those studying energy and that their work as a collaborative efforto writunderstandable stories on these various elements of energy. the other thing i would suggest is that if the federal government, whenever they do
any conact and, i had already asked belair to do this, but any contract not classified has to have a one-page list of bullets that are what i call new learnings. i'm sorry went on for so long, but i have worked on this for so long. >> thank you. >> do like the idea of those bullet points. they're doing that for mortgages now. back here. >> . arm from national defense university. i age with your conclusions that the energy outlook is much more positive than two years ago, but, may, i want to
queson two fctionsone of them, the difference between boder ability and [inaudib] what happens in china and india states.ect the united we will never be independent in a global market. many of you talked about countries that do not wish us well. basically, opec countries. these countries, in my opinion, have been very cooperative. libya, kuwait, uae. they have all helped us contained iran. they have some connection with an 9/11.
our relationship with these countries have been very good. >> ihink it has been said what you said in your first poin the fact that we may reduce the amountf oil import, it d not decouple was from the world oil market. canada and norway are both exporters, but their citizens pay of the market price for a gallon of gasoline. we said exactly what you said on your first point. on your second point, the opec nations in being friends of the unedtates, i think the answer to at is that both
sides have had a rationship th has been economically necessary, but i do not think the opec cartel conducts its affairs in a way to benefit the uned states of arica. they conduct tir affairs so that they do not kill the goose that laid the golden egg. if you turn into the record on pages 8 and you're asking for some visual ces as to what's going on here. if you look on page 8 coming will see the united states is paying about $20 million per month tomport petroleum. you see the sharp se in the line just before 2008 and then it sort oflat lines from 28 going through the significant dip that was represented by the subprime mortgage meltdown.
ist's interesting about it from that point forward itas remained about 50% of t balance of payments and deficits. thats because the oil carl prices the marginal barrel of oil as what it costs to get it out of the ground and wh the maximum is thaey cannot pay without tipping the consumers over into a recession. the chart the next page to the right of that shows it even more clearly. as you can see, the blue lines the, right befor2008, the meltdown, we went up to $147 per barrel for oil. that was the match that let off the subpmal down because the
subprime borrowers, who probably should not have bought that min with an you were ten advantage of were literally reduced making the decision not between buying gasoline to go to work for defaulting on the mortgage. you e a precipitous drop in the dark blue and here it goes back up. are now at over 6% of our gdp spend of petroleum. as mr. sperling said, they reduce to thpayroltax last year, in 2011, amounting to $108 billion. the not by accident of price of fuel went up and consumed our disposable income in this country. as you can see, the light blue bar, the only way to solve this problem is not to get divorced from the global economy, as canada and norway has showed some it would not make a difference anyway. we need to diversify transportation so that it is not as dependent upon petroleum as is currently the case and
this redline on page 9, probably the most important of all, the amount of oil that we can assume per $1,000 of g.d.p. if we can diversify into compressed natural gas and come up with a viable electrification and of trucks and vehicles, those are profound developments which were not possible until very recently. the report that we have here house all three of those things, the maximization of oil. it into saudi arabia levels mean we produce 11 million barrels. at the same time, driving down consumption and, fuel efficiency standards, electrification, natural gas, and continuing research and development that sutterville is and was talking about in the hopes we could take a biofuels to fly in airplanes and drive trucks to get them into scaled production that
would be cost-effective. if we do all three of those things, we have a real opportunity to change the economic dependency of this country and certainly the national security risks that we continue to have with a black swan events like saudi arabia becoming a state that is controlled like a theocracy like iran or something. >> let's get one more here. >> i'm curious what mr. smith thinks about the conversation between senator alexander and gene sperling about research and development. the price of plasma televisions
fell 20 full and it really was not a matter of research and development does it was staley on deployment. how much do we have to focus on new technology, getting into scale land to a point where they are produced in volumes such as prices can decline and be accessible to more consumers and create a virtuous cycle but there has to be a balance and a curious where you come down on that. >> we live normal fruits of research and development that has been conducted in years past, some by the government, in terms of their plans come a jet engines, the internet, so forth some of it was done in private
research and development laboratories, like bell labs. the japanese industry and the japanese government has been very active in this area. i would say to you the global revolution creating the improvements in lithium ion batteries which was helped at mit so this is just one big world of intellectual property and that has led nissan leafs to be built in tennessee. the electrical power grid that was mentioned would provide the power. let me give you a "gee whiz" statistic. there are too ordered 50 million light duty cars and trucks in the united states and
we have enough power-generating capability that if you could wave a magic and have a smart grid and all those vehicles were converted to electric power, which converts into energy at a rate of over 85% vs. less than 20% for an internal combustion engine and, you would not have to build another power plants in the united states of america. with the natural gas revolution that is under way, we have a plentiful supply for electricity to move a significant amount of the 10 million barrels of oil per day we consume in light duty trucks and vehicles and to hybrid or hybrid-electric power and reduce our consumption overall by millions of barrels
of oil per day thereby reducing the amount that the economy expounds on petroleum per unit of gdp. that's the goal here. >> you have to have a cheaper battery. we're not going to sell a lot as long as the batteries are so expensive. >> i think the research and development, senator, is absolutely essential on batteries and biofuel-scale production. those two areas are the most important, but i have to tell you krupa an incredible piece of machinery is the chevy volt. it will produce 35 miles of transportation on electric power and then you have a range of 350 miles an days sell about 3000 of them per day -- excuse me, per month. i know my friend would like to be selling 3000 per day. i think improved battery
technology is on the trajectory and that is the holy grail, pier electric. i think a lot of progress is being made here, but the recommendations we have here have the best chance of achieving a kind of breakthrough. >> it's a great point that there are a lot of different types of fuel. ireland ceo of a garbage company and we take the waste to produce every day and one company produces eight times the amount of power from waste than the entire solar industry. --re's no company investing and we get about 50-60 of the btu content. there's no company introducing more on how to get 100% than ours. you have a lot of technologies that absolutely working on that you have to build these plans to scale. who will take that kind of risk? it's a great point that if we're going to help in new
technologies, it is not just about research, development. we have plenty, but now we have to risk $100 million to see if it works to scale. no matter which way you go, we happen to be going compressed natural gas, but where do you fuel these trucks? building that infrastructure this year, we will spend about $50 million on building our own cng plants. most of those we will make available to the public so taxicabs and buses can fuel there, but that is another place we could use help. how do we build the data structure when we move to these fleets that we can have an infrastructure to support those leads? we happen to be doing it on our own. it does not make a lot of economic sense in a lot of areas, but where we can get our own feeling station, that's an area where we could use help building an infrastructure to make it more economic.
i think your point is absolutely well taken. there's plenty of technologies out there, and we do not know if they will scale. that is where we could use help, defraying the initial build out risk. >> i did the very important to understand, and the heavy- vehicle side, a mention 10 million barrels per day consumed by light-duty vehicles and 300 million are consumed by the over the road trucks, buses, garbage vehicles. the over the road sector today is paying close to $4 per gallon for diesel fuel. the natural gas equivalents is under $2 per gallon, so there is a huge economic incentive. until recently, there were not engines that could efficiently use lng, cummins and others. infrastructure is being put in
by shell and ta, the second- largest truck stop system, and by clean energy, mr. pickens company and pilot and flying j. there are a lot of things in this area that are moving in terms of heavy-duty vehicles in terms of natural gas and light duty vehicles are moving towards electrification and hybrids. >> our biggest problem with the natural gas in the structured are people with a gasoline- powered engines to ask if they can buy our gas for $1.99 and we have to tell them that it's a different kind of gas. >> on that note, i think we will leave it there. a big round of applause for everyone on the panel. thank you so much for spending time with us this morning. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
>> president obama's weekly address, he talks about u.s. tax policy. the current tax cuts were put in place by the previous administration and will expire by the end of the year. then, marco rubio on jobs and education policy. >> hello, everybody. over the last few weeks, there's been a lot of talk about deadlines we're facing on jobs and taxes and investments. but with so much noise and so many opinions flying around, it can be easy to lose sight of what this debate is really about. it's not about which political party comes out on top, or who wins or loses in washington. it's about making smart decisions that will have a real impact on your lives and the lives of americans all across the country.
right now, middle-class tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year. time is running out. and there are two things that can happen. first, if congress does nothing, every family in america will see their income taxes automatically go up on january 1st. a typical middle-class family of four would get a $2,200 tax hike. that would be bad for families, it would be bad for businesses, and it would drag down our entire economy. now, congress can avoid all this by passing a law that prevents a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody's income. that means 98% of americans and 97% of small businesses wouldn't see their income taxes go up by a single dime. even the wealthiest americans would get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income. and families everywhere would enjoy some peace of mind. the senate has already done their part. now we're just waiting for
republicans in the house to do the same thing. but so far, they've put forward an unbalanced plan that actually lowers rates for the wealthiest americans. if we want to protect the middle class, then the math just doesn't work. we can and should do more than just extend middle class tax cuts. i stand ready to work with republicans on a plan that spurs economic growth, creates jobs and reduces our deficit -- a plan that gives both sides some of what they want. i'm willing to find ways to bring down the cost of health care without hurting seniors and other americans who depend on it. and i'm willing to make more entitlement spending cuts on top of the $1 trillion dollars in cuts i signed into law last year. but if we're serious about reducing our deficit while still investing in things like education and research that are important to growing our economy -- and if we're serious about protecting middle-class families -- then we're also going to have to ask the wealthiest americans to pay higher tax rates. that's one principle i won't
compromise on after all, this was a central question in the election. a clear majority of americans -- democrats, republicans and independents -- agreed with a balanced approach that asks something from everyone, but a little more from those who can most afford it. it's the only way to put our economy on a sustainable path without asking even more from the middle class. and it's the only kind of plan i'm willing to sign. everyone agrees we need to bring down our deficit and strengthen our economy for the long-term. the question is whether we can do it in a responsible way that allows us to keep investing in the things that have always made america strong. i'm convinced we can. and if both sides are willing to compromise, i believe we can give businesses and families a sense of security going into the new year. thanks, and have a great weekend. >> hello, i'm marco rubio. i have the honor of representing florida in the united states senate, and the privilege of addressing you today on behalf of my fellow
republicans. our middle class has made america different from the rest of the world. every country has rich people. but only a few places have achieved a vibrant and stable middle class. and none has been more vibrant and more stable than ours. but now a growing opportunity gap has developed between the dreams of millions of americans and the opportunities for them to actually realize them. americans are struggling to find or keep middle class jobs for two reasons -- because our economy is not creating enough of these jobs and because too many of our people don't have the education or skills required for the jobs that are being created. a limited government can and must help solve these challenges. we must get the national debt under control. tax increases will not solve our $16 trillion debt. only economic growth and a reform of entitlement programs will help control the debt. we must reform our complicated, uncertain, job-killing tax code, by getting rid of unjustified loopholes. but our goal should be to generate new revenue by
creating new taxpayers, not new taxes. we must follow a balanced approach to regulations. regulations are needed, but they cost money to follow. the more expensive a regulation is, the less money a business has leftover to give raises or hire new people. we must not let american innovation in our energy industry go to waste. we have the potential for all kinds of new middle class jobs- from the fields and platforms where we drill, to the manufacturing plants that will return to the u.s. with the lower cost of energy. but we need government to encourage these job opportunities, not continue to block them. a return to sound monetary policy would also help by making the future value of a dollar more predictable. and we must get the cost of health insurance under control. you should be able to get a health care plan that fits your needs and your budget, from any company in america that's willing to sell it to you, and with the same tax benefit if you buy it yourself or have an employer buy it for you. these ideas will help create
middle class jobs. but we also have to make sure that our people have the skills to do these new jobs. and a limited government can help by promoting curriculum reform, teacher training and empowering parents with the freedom to choose their kids' school. our tax code should reward education investments the same way companies are encouraged to invest in equipment. let's encourage career, technical and vocational education, stop discriminating against online courses, encourage skill development that doesn't require the traditional four-year college route, and reform our federal grant and loan programs. and let's make sure our students and parents know what they're getting into financially when it comes to planning their college studies. the bottom line is, let's stop preparing 21st century students using a 20th century education model, instead let's be creative, innovative and daring in reforming the way we provide our people the skills they're going to need to make it to the middle class. and finally, we must realize that our social well-being has
a direct impact on our economic well-being. societal breakdown can't be solved by government, but it also can't be ignored by government. helping people make it into the middle class is a personal issue for me. my parents worked in the service industry. in almost any other nation on earth, their jobs would barely provide for daily living much less a better future. but in america, my parents made it to the middle class. today, the journey my parents made from poor immigrants to middle class, it's harder than it was in their time because the world has changed. the economy has changed. but whether or not the journey my parents made is still possible to all who are willing to work for it, well that will decide whether america will decline or whether america will remain exceptional. the emergence of a strong, 21st century american middle class is the answer to our most pressing challenges. and it all starts with our people.
in our hotel kitchens, in the landscaping crews working in our neighborhoods, and in the late night janitorial shifts that clean our offices. there. there you will find the dreams america was built on. there you will find the promise of tomorrow. their journey is also our nation's destiny. and if they can give their children what our parents gave us, well then life in 21st century america can be better than it has ever been. may god bless all of you. and may god bless the united states of america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> on friday, vice president joe biden visited the metro 29 diner in arlington, virginia. he spoke to the press about some of those personal stories and reiterated the white house stance on negotiations of the
fiscal cliff. this is about 15 minutes. >> i went to begin by thanking all the folks around the table here for sharing their personal stories with may about how this increase in taxes -- my friend fernand no calculated it down to the penny. each of their stories are different. maybe after i head out, they will be willing to talk to you. the bottom line was that there is -- in the neighborhood we come from, there are $2,000 to $4,000 less in your paycheck next year makes the material difference in the way [indiscernible] i will let them decide the way to tell their personal stories spending one person at this
table has two children with severe disabilities. twins come a beautiful little girls. a lot of programs they desperately need -- and number of them are paid for or made available and possible because of state and federal programs. the things that do not cover that make a real difference in their lives -- they have a problem that is -- what is the phrase? which means that they have trouble controlling their muscles, their body functions, their ability to intake food and so forth. one of the things that makes a difference in their lives is
piano lessons and gymnastic courses, which they struggle with, but it builds muscle. if we take out of blogs salary next year another $3,000 to $4,000, it impacts things that fundamentally impact on the prospects for his eight-year olds to be in a situation where some day they may be able to be on their own or self-sufficient. there are circumstances here where a number of people around this table have a family member who has hit hard times because of health reasons or financial reasons, and are living with them in their home. a husband being paralyzed on the right side bending and